If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

Originally Posted by sunsignarcher

I'm curious to see who the family sues first.

There's no case there. If there were, it would only be against Passaic County who owns the land. But there is no case. Land is posted as bear country with signs telling hikers what to do if they encounter a bear. What more can you do? State has a bear hunt and doesn't own this land (which doesn't allow bear hunting). Nobody else could be at fault. You can't sue God if you get hit by lightening, correct?

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

Originally Posted by Rusty Spinner

There's no case there. If there were, it would only be against Passaic County who owns the land. But there is no case. Land is posted as bear country with signs telling hikers what to do if they encounter a bear. What more can you do? State has a bear hunt and doesn't own this land (which doesn't allow bear hunting). Nobody else could be at fault. You can't sue God if you get hit by lightening, correct?

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

Originally Posted by Rusty Spinner

There's no case there. If there were, it would only be against Passaic County who owns the land. But there is no case. Land is posted as bear country with signs telling hikers what to do if they encounter a bear. What more can you do? State has a bear hunt and doesn't own this land (which doesn't allow bear hunting). Nobody else could be at fault. You can't sue God if you get hit by lightening, correct?

I wouldn't be so sure. Passiac County, NJDFW, and the other hikers could possibly get sued if some idiot lawyer convinces the family that there is a case here. I mean shouldn't the "state" be protecting its citizens from wild animals.

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

you mean...not creating a hazardous nuisance. They knew or should have known fencing in (limiting the animals ability to wander to access to food during tough times) a bear population, not allowing hunting (keeping bear population high and not afraid of humans) and then allowing the general population to wander around carrying food would lead to a mauling or death?

Basically it will get framed as the State/land owners fencing in dangerous wild animals letting them grow their population to above carrying capacity and then when they are under nourished allowing hikers to wander around. ....But for the State/Land owners negligent behavior, building the fence and restricting hunting and not putting other viable population controls in place, the bear would have been amply nourished and not attracted to hikers with food.

The more I write it out the more of a slam dunk case it sounds to be....For 150 years people in NJ and bears have interacted with no human deaths. Now in the short X years since NJ artificially and negligently fenced in a population of bears and allowed them to reproduce uncontrollably a young man has paid with his life.

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

Imagine the cross again of the witness for the State.

Lawyer for the Victim (LFV): "Why did you erect a fence around the preserve?"
Witness for the state (WFS): "to protect the wildlife."
LFV: So your goal with the fence was to keep out poachers and allow the wildlife inside to flourish?"
WFS: "Yes, exactly"
LFV: "Did you maintain the fence?"
WFS: "yes we repaired any breaches promptly"?
LFV: You allowed the public to hike in the nature preserve?"
WFS: "of course the public should enjoy the natural world"
LFV: Did you expect to succeed in helping the wildlife in the preserve flourish?"
WFS: "Why of course we spent considerable money and time building and maintain the fence"
LFV: "If you thought you were going to succeed if getting the wild life to flourish what plans were in place to keep populations in check?"
WFS: "Well natural predators should keep the ecosystem healthy"
LFV: "What are the natural predators of bears?"
WFS: "uhhhh old age famine"
LFV: "So with the bear population flourishing and no predators besides old age one could say that the population in the preserve was artificially high?"
WFS: uhhh in a natural habitat the population reaches a carrying capcity with the land and since we protected the land the population would limit it self.
LFV "You have to admit that there are times when all the elements in nature align and food sources are plentiful for a while and the population of certain animals rises.
WFS "Yes"
LFV " When nature changes and food is scare what happens?
WFS " animals starve or they move to new unexploited feeding grounds.
LFV" Your fence restricted the movement of the animals
WFS "Yes
LFV" So it was evitable in your fenced in preserve that at some point animals would reproduce to the point of starvation?
WFS" I guess that is correct, but it is all part of nature"
LFV" Your fence was not part of nature:
WFS "we were trying to protect the animals"
LFV " You raised dangerous animals in a protected environment with no plan to supplement their food sources during lean times and restricted their ability to roam to find more.
WFS " I would not put it like that...
LFV" after you starved caged animals you then opened the door and invited the public in.
WFS" We wanted to help nature..
LFV "Next witness"

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

Originally Posted by Oliver10

you mean...not creating a hazardous nuisance. They knew or should have known fencing in (limiting the animals ability to wander to access to food during tough times) a bear population, not allowing hunting (keeping bear population high and not afraid of humans) and then allowing the general population to wander around carrying food would lead to a mauling or death?

Basically it will get framed as the State/land owners fencing in dangerous wild animals letting them grow their population to above carrying capacity and then when they are under nourished allowing hikers to wander around. ....But for the State/Land owners negligent behavior, building the fence and restricting hunting and not putting other viable population controls in place, the bear would have been amply nourished and not attracted to hikers with food.

The more I write it out the more of a slam dunk case it sounds to be....For 150 years people in NJ and bears have interacted with no human deaths. Now in the short X years since NJ artificially and negligently fenced in a population of bears and allowed them to reproduce uncontrollably a young man has paid with his life.

I think we found the idiot lawyer..

btw, that entire preserve is by no means fenced in. Only a small section is near the entrance and the areas bordering homes.

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

Can I get the cliff notes on this?

Originally Posted by Oliver10

Imagine the cross again of the witness for the State.

Lawyer for the Victim (LFV): "Why did you erect a fence around the preserve?"
Witness for the state (WFS): "to protect the wildlife."
LFV: So your goal with the fence was to keep out poachers and allow the wildlife inside to flourish?"
WFS: "Yes, exactly"
LFV: "Did you maintain the fence?"
WFS: "yes we repaired any breaches promptly"?
LFV: You allowed the public to hike in the nature preserve?"
WFS: "of course the public should enjoy the natural world"
LFV: Did you expect to succeed in helping the wildlife in the preserve flourish?"
WFS: "Why of course we spent considerable money and time building and maintain the fence"
LFV: "If you thought you were going to succeed if getting the wild life to flourish what plans were in place to keep populations in check?"
WFS: "Well natural predators should keep the ecosystem healthy"
LFV: "What are the natural predators of bears?"
WFS: "uhhhh old age famine"
LFV: "So with the bear population flourishing and no predators besides old age one could say that the population in the preserve was artificially high?"
WFS: uhhh in a natural habitat the population reaches a carrying capcity with the land and since we protected the land the population would limit it self.
LFV "You have to admit that there are times when all the elements in nature align and food sources are plentiful for a while and the population of certain animals rises.
WFS "Yes"
LFV " When nature changes and food is scare what happens?
WFS " animals starve or they move to new unexploited feeding grounds.
LFV" Your fence restricted the movement of the animals
WFS "Yes
LFV" So it was evitable in your fenced in preserve that at some point animals would reproduce to the point of starvation?
WFS" I guess that is correct, but it is all part of nature"
LFV" Your fence was not part of nature:
WFS "we were trying to protect the animals"
LFV " You raised dangerous animals in a protected environment with no plan to supplement their food sources during lean times and restricted their ability to roam to find more.
WFS " I would not put it like that...
LFV" after you starved caged animals you then opened the door and invited the public in.
WFS" We wanted to help nature..
LFV "Next witness"

************************************************** ************FOR THE HATERS, HOW TO FISH BEADS!!!!!

Re: Black bear kills a man in NJ

I have encountered a few bears while fishing the Flatbrook. I always play by the rule, "be aware of what is going on around you at all times". You have to when you are in bear country. I always hold my ground and look right at them. That usually stops them in their tracks. I have never had one come at me. I can see why this bear was embolden. He was not challenged. The second mistake was they ran. Predators can smell fear and if you give the notion to the bear that you are prey. He is going to treat you like prey,

"Hatchery fish have the same colors, but they always seem muted like bad reproductions of great art." Bill Barich